Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 30 references

Low-rank and graphon limits for dynamic threshold distress contagion in heterogeneous financial networks

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A financial network whose exposure matrix has rank K is exactly equivalent to K macroscopic feedback coordinates, and its large-population limit is Wasserstein-stable in the population type law, with a quantitative bridge to directed…

desk verdict A rigorous reduction theory for dynamic threshold contagion on dense heterogeneous networks; the proofs check out, and the paper is honest about its scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04529 v1 pith:FWG4V7U3 submitted 2026-08-05 q-fin.MF

Pengbin Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.MF MSC 60K3560J6091G4005C82
keywords systemicriskfinancialnetworksthresholddistresscontagionoccupation-timedirectedgraphonslow-rankapproximationnonlinearfeedbacksystemsinteractingparticle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes a reduction theory for dynamic default contagion in large, heterogeneous financial networks: when the exposure matrix admits a rank-$K$ factorization, the $N$-bank system is exactly equivalent to $K$ macroscopic feedback coordinates, one per transmission channel, and not merely approximately so. The large-population limit is a nonautonomous $K$-dimensional ODE whose solution is Wasserstein-stable in the population type law, and for smooth losses a quantitative bridge theorem splits the total error into a finite-population sampling term and a kernel-truncation term. For the discontinuous default-indicator loss, well-posedness holds provided the threshold projection has a bounded density, with a VC-type finite-$N$ estimate for selected sampled solutions; the graphon-level theory covers factorized kernels and uniformly transverse piecewise-smooth kernel--profile pairs. The payoff of the claim, if true, is that network heterogeneity and analytic tractability do not have to be traded off: tiered markets, multiple clearing houses, and bank--nonbank architectures concentrate stress in few channels, and the model makes that dimensional collapse exact.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the rank-$K$ factor representation of the exposure matrix together with the feedback system it generates. The factorization $e^N_{ij} = (1/K)\sum_{k=1}^K a_{i,k} b_{j,k}$ splits each link into a receiver-side sensitivity $a$ and a sender-side contribution $b$, and the contagion closes through the coordinates $\beta_k(t) = \int_0^t m_k(s)\,ds$ with $m_k(t) = \int b_k \ell(X_t)\,d\mu$; Lemma 2.2 proves this is an exact rewriting of the finite network, not an approximation, so the dynamical dimension drops from $N$ to $K$ with zero loss. For the discontinuous indicator loss, the mechanism that carries well-posedness is the threshold-regularity assumption (Assumption 3.9): the scalar random variable $x + \mu t + t\Lambda(z) - (1/K)\sum_k a_k \beta_k$ under the type law has a density bounded uniformly over time and feedback, which makes the indicator feedback map Lipschitz and permits Carathéodory existence and uniqueness. At the graphon level the same idea is implemented through the cumulative occupation-time profile $H_t(u) = \int_0^t 1\{X_s(u) \le 0\}\,ds$, which converts the indicator equation into the fixed-point equation $H_t(u) = \int_0^t 1\{\Psi_s(u, H_s) \le 0\}\,ds$ in $L^1$, with the bounded-density condition (Assumption 4.18) or uniform transversality of the kernel--profile pair supplying the Lipschitz control.

What would settle it

Run the rank-one indicator dynamics with initial buffers drawn so that a positive mass of types sits exactly at the default threshold, and compare the limits of the two $\varepsilon$-regularized losses from Remark 3.18 as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$; different or non-convergent limits would show that the bounded-density condition is load-bearing exactly where the paper says the theory stops. A second check: on a discontinuous block kernel, verify experimentally that families of truncations with vanishing $L^1$ kernel error but no uniform threshold regularity break the indicator bridge, while uniformly transverse structure-preserving families converge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the rank of the exposure matrix is the dynamical dimension of contagion. Given a factorization $e^N_{ij} = (1/K)\sum_{k=1}^K a_{i,k} b_{j,k}$, where $a_{i,k}$ measures how strongly bank $i$ is exposed to factor $k$ and $b_{j,k}$ how strongly bank $j$ transmits stress into it, the entire $N$-bank system admits an exact reformulation (Lemma 2.2) as $K$ macroscopic feedback coordinates $\beta_k(t) = \int_0^t \int b_k \ell(X_s(z))\,\mu(dz)\,ds$, with each bank's state recovered from the $K$-dimensional map $X_t(z) = x + \mu t + t\Lambda(z) - (1/K)\sum_k a_k \beta_k(t)$. The finite network and its large-population limit are the same construction evaluated at two type measures, the empirical law and the limiting law, so convergence reduces to continuity of the dynamics with respect to the type law. Under the $1/K$ normalization the stability constant in the Wasserstein estimate is uniform in $K$, which is what allows the finite-rank theory to serve as a bridge to the infinite-rank graphon equation, with Theorem 4.4 separating finite-population sampling error from kernel-approximation error. For the default-indicator loss $\ell(x) = 1\{x \le 0\}$, well-posedness is restored by a bounded-density condition on scalar threshold projections that makes the discontinuous feedback map Lipschitz; at the graphon level the dynamics are re-expressed through the cumulative default profile $H_t(u) = \int_0^t 1\{X_s(u) \le 0\}\,ds$, which closes the feedback in function space and supports well-posedness for factorized and uniformly transverse kernels.

Load-bearing premise

The whole edifice rests on the premise that no macroscopic group of banks ever sits exactly at the default threshold: for every time and every admissible feedback vector the threshold projection $x + \mu t + t\Lambda(z) - (1/K)\sum_k a_k \beta_k$ must have a density bounded by a finite constant under the type law, so that when capital buffers bunch at a supervisory minimum the indicator feedback loses the Lipschitz control the proofs need, a case the paper explicitly leaves open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An exact rank-$K$ network can be simulated and analyzed through $K$ scalar feedback paths instead of $N$ coupled state paths, with the reduced system reproducing the full system exactly (Lemma 2.2); the paper's numerical examples confirm this to floating-point precision.
  • Under i.i.d. sampling of bank types, the state law converges almost surely in Wasserstein distance for bounded Lipschitz losses, and in the indicator regime the feedback coordinates converge at order $\sqrt{K\log N/N}$ for any measurable selection of sampled solutions (Theorems 3.4 and 3.17).
  • The graphon bridge theorem separates the total error into a finite-population sampling term proportional to $W_1(\mu_0^N, \mu_0^{(K)})$ and a kernel-truncation term proportional to the $L^1$ kernel and profile errors, with constants uniform in $K$ (Theorem 4.4).
  • For default-indicator losses, the same separation is available only along uniformly transverse approximation families and requires $L^\infty$ kernel control, with well-posedness at fixed rank under threshold regularity and at graphon level for factorized and piecewise-smooth transverse kernels (Theorems 3.11, 4.16, 4.19, and 4.30).
  • On the 2025 EBA sovereign-exposure data, the empirical resampling error on the 117-bank population follows the predicted $N^{-1/2}$ scale for smooth losses, and factor-aligned truncations can outperform generic SVD truncations of higher algebraic rank in the stress scenario.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the convergence-rate diagnostic used on the EBA sample suggests a practical test — run the same resampling experiment on simulated networks with artificially bunched capital buffers, and the $N^{-1/2}$ scale should degrade exactly as the type law develops near-atoms at the threshold, signaling that the limit theory is outside its regime.
  • Editorial extension: Theorem 4.4's bounded-factor admissibility requirement implies a model-selection rule of thumb — spectral decay alone never licenses a finite-$N$ indicator bridge; one must also check uniform bounded factor representations and uniform threshold regularity along the truncation family.
  • Editorial extension: because the contagion state is summarized by the $K$-dimensional feedback vector $\beta(t)$, the reduced system is a natural low-dimensional state for control and stress-test design, a direction the deterministic skeleton does not pursue.
  • Editorial extension: the atomic failure mode the paper leaves open suggests the natural next construction is a set-valued or Filippov treatment of the default feedback at regulatory bunching points, which would complete the indicator theory where the density bound cannot hold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a reduction theory for deterministic continuous-time distress contagion on dense directed financial networks. Section 2 shows that an exact rank-K factorization of the exposure matrix reduces the N-bank system to K macroscopic feedback coordinates (Lemma 2.2). Section 3 proves Wasserstein stability of the limiting feedback system in the type law (Theorem 3.4), gives a transport representation for the joint state–factor law, and establishes well-posedness for indicator losses under a threshold-density assumption (Theorem 3.11), together with a VC-type finite-N estimate for selected sampled solutions (Theorem 3.17). Section 4 formulates a directed graphon contagion equation, proves L1 well-posedness and stability for bounded Lipschitz losses, and derives a quantitative finite-rank-to-kernel bridge (Theorems 4.2 and 4.4). The indicator-loss theory is extended to factorized kernels and to uniformly transverse non-factorized families (Theorems 4.16, 4.19, and 4.28), with a restricted-family bridge theorem (Theorem 4.30) and a sampled finite-N variant (Corollary 4.32). Section 6 validates the reduction numerically and applies it to a sovereign-overlap illustration based on the 2025 EBA transparency exercise; the resampling experiment on the 117-bank population is consistent with the predicted N^{-1/2} scale.

Significance. This is a substantial and carefully scoped contribution to heterogeneous network contagion modeling. The exact algebraic reduction of Lemma 2.2 is proved in detail, the Wasserstein stability constants in Theorem 3.4 are uniform in K under the stated normalization, and Theorem 4.4 genuinely separates finite-population sampling error from low-rank kernel truncation error. The paper is unusually honest about its limitations: Assumption 3.9 and its graphon analogues are disclosed as regularity conditions rather than derived facts, Theorem 3.17 is explicitly conditional on a measurable selection, and Definition 4.26 restricts the indicator bridge to uniformly transverse approximation families. The numerical section is also disciplined: scenario parameters in Section 6.5 are declared to be hand-chosen stress inputs, not fitted to reproduce observed outcomes, and the indicator default fraction is presented as a large-population benchmark rather than a point forecast. The appendix proofs are detailed and support the main theorems. I find no load-bearing technical error and no unstated assumption that would invalidate the central claims.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Remark 4.8] The sentence beginning 'These approximants connect the finite-rank theory of theorem 3.4 appears as the natural truncation of the graphon model...' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten, for example as 'These approximants connect the finite-rank theory of Theorem 3.4, which appears as the natural truncation of the graphon model in the bounded-Lipschitz regime.'
  2. [§4.1] The remark beginning 'Remark(Deterministic data and sampling)' is unnumbered and should be either assigned a numbered remark label or integrated into the surrounding discussion.
  3. [Appendix A.2, proof of Proposition 4.9] There are typographical spacing errors in the phrase 'Forthe L1 convergence, notethat' in the proof of Proposition 4.9, which should be corrected to 'For the L1 convergence, note that'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central theorems are proved from stated assumptions in the appendices; the sole self-citation ([21]) is historical and non-load-bearing, and the empirical scenarios use declared stress inputs with output diagnostics checked, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Lemma 2.2 is an exact algebraic reformulation: substituting the rank-K factorization (7) into (6) shows the N coupled equations are identical, atom by atom, to the feedback system (9)-(10) with beta defined by (10); the claim is an equivalence between two representations, and it is contentful because non-factorized exposure matrices admit no such K-dimensional closure. The K-dimensional feedback ODE (11)-(12), Wasserstein stability (Theorem 3.4), and indicator well-posedness (Theorem 3.11) are proved directly in Appendix A by Gronwall, optimal-coupling, and Caratheodory arguments under the stated assumptions (bounded factors, Lipschitz or threshold-regular losses); no parameter is fitted to make these theorems true. The bridge theorem 4.4 separates finite-population error (controlled by Theorem 3.4 and standard W1 empirical rates) from kernel-truncation error (controlled by Theorem 4.2's L1 stability) by the triangle inequality; the resampling experiments check that observed log-log slopes (-0.48, -0.42, -0.49) match the predicted N^{-1/2} scale rather than being fitted to it, and the paper explicitly notes where the prediction does not apply: 'For the indicator loss, the discrete population does not satisfy the density condition of remark 3.10, so the theorem gives no rate.' All empirical scenario parameters are declared as hand-chosen stress inputs: 'The parameters x*, cE, and eta define a stress scenario and are not estimated from prices or supervisory models.' The indicator-loss theory is scoped under Assumptions 3.9 and 4.18 with multiple honest statements of what remains open (Remarks 3.14, 4.7, 4.17, 4.25, and Section 7). The only self-citation ([21], the author's dissertation) is historical attribution; every theorem it motivates is proved in the present appendices, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. I find no step that reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main theorems are parameter-free relative to the stated model inputs; the only hand-chosen parameters appear in the empirical stress scenario and are explicitly declared as such. The dominant unproved inputs are the factorization, threshold regularity, and uniform transversality assumptions, all of which are stated precisely and discussed with respect to their failure modes.

free parameters (4)
  • c_E = 0.30
    Interaction intensity in the empirical sovereign-overlap kernel (42), hand-chosen for the stress scenario; not estimated from data and not used in the main theorems.
  • x* = 0.40
    Baseline initial buffer in the sovereign-overlap calibration (44), hand-chosen as a scenario parameter.
  • eta vector = (0.35, 0.15, 0.45, 0.05)
    Sovereign concentration stress loadings in (44), hand-chosen to make Italian exposure the dominant vulnerability; scenario parameter.
  • epsilon = 0.05
    Smoothing width of the negative-side ramp loss in the empirical experiment (43); numerical regularization parameter, not central to the theorems.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Exposure matrix factorizes as e^N_ij = (1/K) sum_k a_i,k b_j,k (Eq. 7)
    Necessary for the exact finite-rank reduction in Lemma 2.2; the graphon theory later relaxes this via approximation families.
  • domain assumption Uniform factor bounds |a_k|,|b_k| <= M (Assumption 3.1)
    Used throughout for Lipschitz constants, cube confinement, and uniformity in K.
  • domain assumption Dense scaling e^N_ij = e^N_ij/N with e^N uniformly bounded (Section 2.1)
    Sets the mean-field limit regime; without it the N^{-1/2} and kernel-error scales differ.
  • domain assumption Threshold projection density bound (Assumption 3.9 and 4.18)
    Makes the indicator feedback map Lipschitz and controls level-set volumes; fails under atomic threshold mass such as regulatory bunching.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform transversality of approximation families (Definition 4.26)
    Introduced to obtain indicator-loss graphon stability and the restricted-family bridge Theorem 4.30; the paper notes generic spectral truncations need not satisfy it.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of a measurable absolutely continuous selection solving the sampled indicator ODE (Theorem 3.17)
    The finite-N indicator estimate is conditional on this selection; Proposition A.3 provides pathwise compactness but not a measurable subsequence.
  • domain assumption Occupation-time indicator convention rather than absorbing default (Section 2.2)
    Defines the model and distinguishes it from clearing and cascade models; an absorbing variant would need a path-dependent threshold functional.
  • standard math Standard analytic tools: Picard-Carathéodory, Gronwall, VC and empirical process bounds, Fubini, martingale convergence, Arzelà-Ascoli
    Used in the proofs; not stated as part of the model itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-rank and graphon limits for dynamic threshold distress contagion in heterogeneous financial networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWG4V7U3

@misc{pith2026260804529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-rank and graphon limits for dynamic threshold distress contagion in heterogeneous financial networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWG4V7U3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04529}
}
abstract

We study a deterministic contagion model for a large population of financial institutions connected by a weighted directed exposure matrix. The sign convention and loss term are motivated by a default cascade with partial recovery and interest servicing, whereas the dynamic model records distress through occupation time and therefore permits recovery. A rank-\(K\) factorization yields an exact reduction of the finite network to \(K\) macroscopic feedback coordinates. For bounded Lipschitz losses, the reduced dynamics form a nonautonomous \(K\)-dimensional ODE; we prove Wasserstein stability with respect to the type law and derive a transport representation for the joint state--factor distribution. On a fixed latent space, the associated directed-kernel equation is well posed and \(L^1\)-stable, and a quantitative bridge theorem separates finite-population error from kernel-approximation error. For the indicator loss, we establish fixed-rank well-posedness under threshold regularity and a Vapnik--Chervonenkis-type estimate for measurable selections of sampled solutions. At the graphon level, we prove well-posedness for factorized kernels and for piecewise-\(C^1\) kernel--profile pairs satisfying uniform transversality, together with a perturbation theorem for uniformly transverse approximation families. A sovereign-overlap illustration based on the 2025 EBA transparency exercise computes factor loadings and a priori sensitivity bounds from public disclosures; resampling errors on the empirical 117-bank population are consistent with the predicted \(N^{-1/2}\) scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Validation of the rank-one and core-periphery examples. Left: the rank-one default fraction converges rapidly to the deterministic limit as N increases. Right: in the core-periphery specification, the group-resolved finite-N trajectories nearly coincide with the limiting core and periphery predictions. 6.2. Exact low-rank validation. In table 3, the uniform error at N = 1600 ranges from 6.2 × 10−4 to 2.3 × 10−3 acro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Directedness and structural amplification. Left: a nonzero imbalance parameter r sharply separates net lenders from net borrowers even when the contagion channel is otherwise rank one. Right: a phase diagram for the multiplex example. The horizontal axis is the multiplier ω2 applied to the baseline second￾layer factor (ω2 = 1 is the calibrated two-layer specification), and the vertical axis is the downward shift ∆NB… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A non-factorized piecewise-smooth indicator-loss graphon illustration. Left: heatmap of the directed kernel W(u, v) used in Section 6.4. Right: hard default fraction trajectories for the indicator-loss dynamics and for the regularized dynamics with ℓε. The smoothed trajectories approach the indicator trajectory as ε ↓ 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Indicator bridge along a structure-preserving trigonometric family. Left: indicator default-fraction trajectories for the full kernel and for the Fourier￾truncated families. Right: kernel L∞ and state L 1 errors decay rapidly as the retained mode count increases, while…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bank-by-country sovereign shares a emp i,k from (41). Italian concentra￾tion is dominant for UniCredit, Banco Santander, and Intesa Sanpaolo, and Italy is also Deutsche Bank’s largest single bucket; France is dominant for BNP Paribas; ING Groep is the most diversified,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Low-rank truncation of the empirical six-bank network. (a) Mean smoothed distress 1 N P i ℓε(X i,N t ) for the exact rank-4 kernel and its rank-1, rank-2, and rank-3 truncations. The rank-2 and rank-3 paths are nearly identical, whereas rank 1 understates the amplifica…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A priori envelope versus observed response to the sovereign re-rating (45). (a) Observed sup-norm state response supt≤T maxi |∆Xi t | and envelope (46) at T = 3, as functions of δ (log scale). (b) Time profile of the observed response and of the a priori envelope at δ …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The full-sample overlap kernel (N = 117, K = 37). (a) Singular values and cumulative Frobenius energy; 11 modes carry 90% of the energy. (b) Sup￾norm contagion-path error of two rank-r surrogates: the factor-aligned truncation, which keeps the r largest counterparty bu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sampling convergence on the full sample, as a resampling diagnostic from the observed 117-type empirical population: i.i.d. draws of size N, 200 replications per size, mean ± 1.96 standard errors, against the N −1/2 reference (dotted). (a) Feedback-path error. (b) Term…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Auxiliary Monte Carlo diagnostics for true i.i.d. sampling in the exact low-rank indicator-loss experiments. Left: in the rank-one example, the deterministic limit is close to the Monte Carlo mean trajectory, while the 95% band records substantial finite-sample disper…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Empirical convergence-rate check for the fixed-rank indicator theorem in the rank-one benchmark. The vertical axis reports the Monte Carlo mean of sup0≤t≤T |β N t − βt | over 200 i.i.d. replications at each N; the shaded band shows the empirical 2.5%–97.5% interval. T…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Multiple-CCP and multiplex examples. Left: threshold-fraction paths with overlapping CCP membership and in the no-overlap benchmark. Right: paths for the two-layer bank–NBFI model and the payment-only rank-one benchmark. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Ti…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Graphon truncation beyond the exact low-rank setting. Left: default trajectories for a directed 30-mode reference kernel and its rank-K truncations, with the reference integrated on a dense 2000-point grid. Right: the pathwise state error decays together with the kern…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aldasoro and I

    I. Aldasoro and I. Alves,Multiplex interbank networks and systemic importance: An application to European data, BIS Working Paper No. 603, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,Banks’ interconnections with non-bank financial intermediaries, Bank for International Settlements, 10 July 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Allmeier and N

    S. Allmeier and N. Gast,Accuracy of the graphon mean field approximation for interacting particle systems, Stochastic Systems15(2025), no. 4, 273–290

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Amini, R

    H. Amini, R. Cont, and A. Minca,Resilience to contagion in financial networks, Mathematical Finance26 (2016), no. 2, 329–365

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Amini, Z

    H. Amini, Z. Cao, and A. Sulem,Limit theorems for default contagion and systemic risk, Mathematics of Operations Research49(2024), no. 4, 2652–2683

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, A

    T. Banerjee, A. Bernstein, and Z. Feinstein,Dynamic clearing and contagion in financial networks, European Journal of Operational Research321(2025), no. 2, 664–675. 62 PENGBIN FENG

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Bayraktar and R

    E. Bayraktar and R. Wu,Stationarity and uniform in time convergence for the graphon particle system, Stochastic Processes and their Applications150(2022), 532–568

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bayraktar and R

    E. Bayraktar and R. Wu,Graphon particle system: Uniform-in-time concentration bounds, Stochastic Processes and their Applications156(2023), 196–225

    work page 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Bayraktar, S

    E. Bayraktar, S. Chakraborty, and R. Wu,Graphon mean field systems, Annals of Applied Probability33 (2023), no. 5, 3587–3619

    2023

  2. [10]

    Bayraktar and H

    E. Bayraktar and H. Zhou,Non-parametric estimates for graphon mean-field particle systems, Bernoulli31 (2025), no. 4, 2940–2961

    2025

  3. [11]

    M. Boss, H. Elsinger, M. Summer, and S. Thurner,Network topology of the interbank market, Quantitative Finance4(2004), no. 6, 677–684

    2004

  4. [12]

    Carmona, J.-P

    R. Carmona, J.-P. Fouque, and L.-H. Sun,Mean field games and systemic risk, Communications in Mathe- matical Sciences13(2015), no. 4, 911–933

    2015

  5. [13]

    R. Cont, A. Moussa, and E. B. Santos,Network structure and systemic risk in banking systems, inHandbook on Systemic Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 327–368

    2013

  6. [14]

    Coppini, A

    F. Coppini, A. De Crescenzo, and H. Pham,Nonlinear graphon mean-field systems, Stochastic Processes and their Applications190(2025), 104728

    2025

  7. [15]

    Craig and G

    B. Craig and G. von Peter,Interbank tiering and money center banks, Journal of Financial Intermediation23 (2014), no. 3, 322–347

    2014

  8. [16]

    Detering, T

    N. Detering, T. Meyer-Brandis, K. Panagiotou, and D. Ritter,An integrated model for fire sales and default contagion, Mathematics and Financial Economics15(2021), 59–101

    2021

  9. [17]

    Crucianelli and L

    C. Crucianelli and L. Tangpi,Interacting particle systems on sparseW-random graphs, arXiv:2410.11240, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Eisenberg and T

    L. Eisenberg and T. H. Noe,Systemic risk in financial systems, Management Science47(2001), no. 2, 236–249

    2001

  11. [19]

    Elliott, B

    M. Elliott, B. Golub, and M. O. Jackson,Financial networks and contagion, American Economic Review104 (2014), no. 10, 3115–3153

    2014

  12. [20]

    S. Erol, F. Parise, and A. Teytelboym,Contagion in graphons, Journal of Economic Theory211(2023), 105673

    2023

  13. [21]

    Feng,Dynamic Network Model for Systemic Risk, Ph.D

    P. Feng,Dynamic Network Model for Systemic Risk, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Applied Mathematics, August 2021. Available athttps://digitallibrary.usc.edu/C.aspx?VP3=pdfviewer& rid=2A3BF1SA6QN8H

    2021

  14. [22]

    Feinstein and A

    Z. Feinstein and A. Sojmark,Short communication: Dynamic default contagion in heterogeneous interbank systems, SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics12(2021), no. 4, SC83–SC97

    2021

  15. [23]

    Fournier and A

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin,On the rate of convergence in Wasserstein distance of the empirical measure, Probability Theory and Related Fields162(2015), no. 3–4, 707–738

    2015

  16. [24]

    A. W. van der Vaart and J. A. Wellner,Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes, Springer, New York, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Gai and S

    P. Gai and S. Kapadia,Contagion in financial networks, Proceedings of the Royal Society A466(2010), no. 2120, 2401–2423

    2010

  18. [26]

    Glasserman and H

    P. Glasserman and H. P. Young,How likely is contagion in financial networks?, Journal of Banking & Finance 50(2015), 383–399

    2015

  19. [27]

    Lovasz,Large Networks and Graph Limits, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012

    L. Lovasz,Large Networks and Graph Limits, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Nadtochiy and M

    S. Nadtochiy and M. Shkolnikov,Mean field systems on networks, with singular interaction through hitting times, Annals of Probability48(2020), no. 3, 1520–1556

    2020

  21. [29]

    L. A. M. Veraart and I. Aldasoro,Systemic risk in markets with multiple central counterparties, Mathematical Finance35(2025), no. 1, 214–262

    2025

  22. [30]

    Sovereign templatetr_sov.csv and dictionary TR_Metadata.xlsx; item 2520810 (direct on-balance-sheet total gross carrying amount of non-derivative financial assets)

    European Banking Authority,2025 EU-wide transparency exercise(Autumn 2025), risk assessment report and bank-level disclosure files, reference dates September 2024–June 2025. Sovereign templatetr_sov.csv and dictionary TR_Metadata.xlsx; item 2520810 (direct on-balance-sheet tot...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.